Touch is our first language. Before a child learns to walk, speak, or even focus their vision, they are communicating with and understanding the world through touch. Developmental psychologists have long underlined the importance of tactile experiences, such as cuddling, rough-and-tumble play, and physical reassurance in establishing emotional regulation, empathy, and secure attachment. But what happens when these foundational experiences are absent? Emerging research suggests that deprivation in early tactile development may not only lead to personal emotional difficulties but could even have wider societal impacts, subtly feeding into extremist ideologies, including far-right activism.
Child psychology has consistently demonstrated that touch plays a critical role in healthy emotional development. Studies by Tiffany Field at the Touch Research Institute found that children deprived of affectionate touch exhibit higher levels of aggression, anxiety, and difficulty with social integration. In contrast, children who receive consistent, nurturing physical contact tend to develop greater empathy and are better able to regulate their emotions. These emotional competencies are crucial in resisting extremist narratives, which often prey on feelings of alienation, resentment, and a desire for belonging.
In more extreme cases, attachment theory, as pioneered by John Bowlby and expanded by Mary Ainsworth, provides a compelling framework for understanding the link between early tactile deprivation and later political radicalisation. A child who experiences insecure attachment, often due to a lack of consistent, loving touch, may grow up with heightened feelings of abandonment and distrust. Such individuals are more susceptible to black-and-white worldviews, where complex societal issues are distilled into simple, emotive narratives of “us versus them”, a hallmark of far-right rhetoric.
An illuminating study by Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) found that individuals with insecure attachment styles were significantly more likely to endorse aggressive, ethnocentric, and exclusionary attitudes. Without the inner security that positive early tactile experiences foster, people may seek a sense of safety through rigid ideologies that promise belonging and clarity in a chaotic world.
Moreover, cultural factors compound this dynamic. In societies where emotional restraint and physical stoicism are prized’ traits often valorised in “traditionalist” discourse, boys especially may grow up discouraged from seeking or accepting nurturing touch. Instead, physical interaction is often limited to competitive or aggressive contexts, such as sport or fighting, reinforcing a model of masculinity centred on dominance rather than emotional connection. Over time, emotional isolation and the suppression of vulnerability can create fertile ground for radical ideologies that offer an illusion of strength and control.
A poignant example is seen in the case studies surrounding white nationalist recruitment. Organisations often frame their movements as “families” offering “brotherhood” and belonging—meeting unmet emotional needs with a dangerous counterfeit. Former extremists, such as those interviewed by the organisation Life After Hate, frequently cite a search for acceptance and connection as a key driver of their initial involvement.
Addressing the root causes means revisiting our attitudes towards childhood development. Encouraging nurturing, affectionate environments for all children—not just during infancy but throughout adolescence—could act as a quiet but powerful form of societal immunisation against extremism. Schools, parenting programmes, and mental health services can all play a role in fostering spaces where emotional expression and physical reassurance are not stigmatised but seen as vital to the formation of healthy, resilient citizens.
Far-right activism, often analysed through the lenses of politics, economics, and ideology, may also be understood as, in part, a symptom of unmet psychological needs rooted in childhood. To combat extremism effectively, we must not only debate ideas but also heal wounds, some of which are as old and as primal as the human need for touch.
Then throw in sexual abuse that some experience, and we have a lethal combination.
